1996 PLP 996 (SCMR)
AHMAD and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 996 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 996 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 996 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 996 (SCMR) (AHMAD and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 299/L of 1993).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Criminal Petition No. 299/L of 1993).
- Nemo for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 63 of 1993).
- Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record and Ejaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (in Criminal Petition No. 63 of 1993).
- Date of hearing: 27th March, 1994.
- Ejaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 299/L of 1993).
- Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record and Ejaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (in Criminal Petition No. 63 of 1993).
- Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 63 of 1993).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8‑5‑1993 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 1102 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Eye‑witnesses claimed to have witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 92 feet which had taken place at 2‑30 a.m. in the night‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the principles governing appraisal of evidence as laid down by Supreme Court were correctly followed by the Courts below. Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 63 of 1993).
Judgment & Decree
Ejaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 299/L of 1993). Nemo for Respondent (in Criminal Petition No. 299/L of 1993). Nemo for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 63 of 1993). Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record and Ejaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (in Criminal Petition No. 63 of 1993). Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in Criminal Petition No. 63 of 1993). Date of hearing: 27th March, 1994. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.- It was a night occurrence having taken place at 2-30 a.m. The eye-witnesses claim to have witnessed it from a distance of 92 feet. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we grant leave in both the petitions to consider whether the principles, governing appraisal of evidence as laid down by this Court, were correctly followed by the Courts below. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Sargodha be issued against the respondents in Criminal Petition No.63/1993. N.H.Q./A-1227/S Leave granted.